Waiting For The Other Joe
By sideways | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War
You know what’s gone missing from the blogosphere lately? The “good news” from Iraq.
For a while there you could hardly click on a pro-war blog without coming upon loud denunciations of everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the Mainstream Media, for failing to report the “good news” from Iraq. There would follow a link to a blog post about a school opening in Donkeydung, Iraq.
Lately, far less chiding. Far fewer posts linking to happy news from Iraq. Not even the most enthusiastic of the pro-war bloggers can keep up that particular line anymore.
Now the pro-war bloggers spend their time straining to avoid recognizing the obvious connection between the Rumsfeldisms of southern Lebanon and Iraq. Now the pro-war bloggers strain to ignore that devastating book, Fiasco. Now the pro-war bloggers carefully avoid taking note of the right-wing pundits and decorated generals and rock-solid conservatives who have abandoned them.
Now, above all, the pro-war bloggers mull ways in which they can somehow . . . somehow . . . blame the liberals for the looming disaster in Iraq.
Yes, the culprits, inevitably, are the liberals who wielded precisely zero influence over the conduct of this war, and the New York Times, which famously became Scooter Libby’s own personal Pravda for a while. They, the liberals, are to blame . . . must somehow be to blame . . . for the failure of a war conceived in the minds of neo-cons, carried out under the precepts of the neo-cons, and financed without stint by the American people.
The blame must never fall on the people — like me — who wanted this war. No, we cannot possibly be to blame.
And never must blame fall on the people in power who ignored dissenting voices, distorted intelligence, botched the conduct of this war, relentlessly politicized this war, lied about this war, sought to profit politically from this war.
People who were simply wrong then — and I was among them — too often went from honest error to stubbornness in defense of error. Now stubborness is metastisizing into fantasy, denial and scapegoating.
All humans make mistakes. Honest mistakes must be forgiven. (At least I, who have made my share, hope so.) But those who make mistakes and then, rather than admit error, rather than suffer correction, turn to denial, and worse to a dishonest search for scapegoats, lose their chance at redemption.
I was wrong to support this war. Not the first time I was wrong about something, and it won’t be the last, I’m afraid. But I try to follow the First Law of Holes: when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Unfortunately too many in the political world, and in our little blogosphere, their hands tight-clenched around the shovel’s handle, just keep digging.
We are moving already into the “Who Lost Iraq?” game. It seems early, but the Right is standing astride the railroad tracks and sees that train a comin’. So they are working feverishly to sidestep blame. The search for a scapegoat is on in earnest. The neo-cons will morph into neo-McCarthyites. They will try to find a witch to burn to expiate their own sins.
So I want to repeat something I will remind readers of from time to time: the number of Mr. Bush’s budget requests for the war that have been refused: zero. The number of military decisions made by Mr. Bush’s critics: zero.
Remember that. The denialists will work night and day to lay the blame for this fiasco on someone else. Never forget that Mr. Bush has been given every dollar, every man he as asked for, and has set every policy. Every dollar, every decision.
–M. Takhallus.
(cross-posted from Sideways Mencken.)
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 20th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:08 am
For those unfamiliar with the archaic terminology used in this methane-blast from the past, here are some definitions:
McCARTHYITE: Someone who accuses conservatives of being liberals, and accuses liberals of being communists.
LIBERAL: Someone who accuses conservatives of being McCarthyites, and accuses communists of being liberals.
That leaves NEOCONSERVATIVE, which is a difficult word to understand. As a rule of thumb, the more often a person uses this word, the less likely it is that he has any understanding of what it means. Here are several definitions – guess the correct one!
1. Foreign policy conservative who (like the liberal) appeals to the language of social science rather than to traditional conservative values. The neoconservative is typically a former liberal or leftist, and tends to be liberal on social issues.
2. The opposite of a neo-liberal, whatever the f–k a “neo-liberal” is supposed to be.
3. A crazed psychotic who wants to wipe out all funny-colored people in order to take their oil and establish a universal Zionist state.
4. One of the things that you burn apart from witches.
5. JEW, JEW, JEW ….
August 21st, 2006 at 12:30 am
Glen, you’re REALLY barking up the wrong tree with this comment. Michael is justifiably fed up with the right-wing’s attempt to pin the blame on liberals. Are we to believe that you’re saying you agree that liberals are to blame?
Also, I did notice you didn’t address the main points of the topic and chose instead to attack the words the commenter used. Why? And in the end, how very disappointing.
August 21st, 2006 at 1:38 am
Actually, I wasn’t blaming anyone for anything. I keep forgetting that the only important thing about world events is who gets blamed for them. Unfortunately, the Iraqis (excuse me, the funny little people from “Donkeydung”) who are hoping for a better future can’t join in the fun of this premature celebration of their demise.
I wouldn’t count your victories (or rather, defeats) before they’re in the bag.
As for addressing the main point of the topic, which is accusing people of McCarthyism, I would think that any comment would elevate the tone. If you want to exercise one-way name-calling privileges (especially those that are 50 years out of date) you should turn the comments off.
On the one hand, Michael is “fed up with the right-wing’s attempt to pin the blame on liberals”. On the other, he is happily smug about the fact that “liberals” have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of a democratic Iraq. Apart from voting for a few bills, for which certain guilty Democrats are currently being hounded out of the party in a rather McCarthyite fashion.
Some years from now, when Iraq matures into an independent state and a relatively open and free society, someone might suggest that they owe it all to Bush and the Republicans. Will you react with indignation to this suggestion? Probably. Will you remember then that you disclaimed all responsibility for Iraq’s future? I doubt it.
August 21st, 2006 at 1:50 am
BTW – In a post that criticizes “neo-cons” for accusing liberals of “losing Iraq” (more obsolete paleo-liberal rhetoric, I might add) it would do very well to provide an actual example of an actual neo-con accusing an actual liberal. Keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller are not neoconservatives.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:38 am
“In a post that criticizes “neo-consâ€Â? for accusing liberals of “losing Iraqâ€Â? (more obsolete paleo-liberal rhetoric, I might add) it would do very well to provide an actual example of an actual neo-con accusing an actual liberal.”
Glen, the truth of the matter is that (in fact) no neo-con worthy of the name has yet recognised that “Iraq has been lost”.
Without that recognition, who is there to blame?
Great post. Great irony. Love it!
August 21st, 2006 at 5:51 am
Glen:
Unless I’m missing something here you seem to be blaming liberals for having done nothing to advance the cause of a democratic Iraq. In other words you’re scapegoating liberals while angrily denying that any such thing is going on.
As for “Jew, jew, jew . . .” I am Jew, Jew, Jew. I am even a zionist in the broadest sense of the word, a supporter of Israel, a supporter of this war until it was reduced to a fiasco.
The very hysteria of your response makes my point.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:33 am
There you go again. For the second time, I’m not the one blaming liberals for turning their back on Iraq. You are.
Your accusation is an unfair generalization, BTW. A large number of liberals support the war – and by supporting the war, I mean they support the defense of the legitimate government of Iraq against a savage enemy who is the aggressor in this conflict. Joe Lieberman and William Shawcross come to mind. A number of other liberals (and conservatives) supported it while they thought it was going well, and have ditched now that they think it is going to fail.
The long road that led up to the present day was paved by many people, in a fine bi-partisan effort. The architects include Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and a host of people in Europe who have since turned to Jell-O. Had the UN and the international community formed a common front against Saddam, instead of taking bribes from him, we might have avoided a lot of trouble.
For my part I believe our efforts in Iraq will succeed, no matter how many difficulties and set-backs lie ahead. If you want no blame for those difficulties, fine. Likewise you will deserve no credit, either – though some liberals and even some leftists will continue to stand by Iraq.
As for Jew, Jew, Jew …
If you’re going to use the word “neo-con” the way the Kosite left uses it, then you ought to be aware that they use it the same way McCarthy used the word “communist”.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:45 am
Glen:
So, summarizing: it’s not a fiasco and if it is then Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman are to blame. Except that it’s not a fiasco, it’s a rousing success and Hillary Clinton is to blame for only voting in support of it.
As for using Neo-con “the way the Kosite left uses it” etc. . . You realize that’s asinine, right?
Keep at it Glen, I’m sure you’re going to work this out if you just keep trying.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:18 am
Glen:
By the way, if you really want to clarify the meaning of the term McCarthyism, why not point to your own writing?
Now that’s McCarthyism, Glen. You take a starting point and them simply invent facts until you can reach your satisfying emotional conclusion. Much as you did in assuming that because I called a neo-con a neo-con I must be an anti-semite. Despite the fact that I’m a Jew and, by the way, bought (and still buy to some extent) the neo-con world view.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:19 am
NOTE:
Of course “Michael” and “Sideways” are both me. I switched browswers.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:36 am
Labels are labels, name calling is name calling. If we change the word “Blame” to “Hold Responsible” I think there is plenty to go around and we can all share.
We have no choice but to win. One can dig a trench with a teaspoon or an excavator. As Michael has said previously, It all comes back to competence and efficiency. This BATTLE in the war on terror has lasted almost as long as WWII, Cost more than WWI, and is closing in on Korea.
Leadership is the ability to motivate others to take action that creates positive results for the leader (although good/great leaders usually do this by reminding the led that these results are universal).
The argument that Europe is not standing up is more an indictment on OUR leadership than their admittedly near sightedness. The argument that our enemy is not fighting in a way that we can efficiently stop and/or kill them is again an indictment on our leadership.
I understand that this is a war like no other, but as Sideways is saying, the prosecution thereof is fast approaching the point of diminished returns.
If this were not a military operation, but medical operation. how happy would you be with the doctor or surgeon ?
August 21st, 2006 at 9:22 am
People are acting as though Iraq is over. Its lost. There is no hope. The reason why it costs more in $$, and why it has taken more time than WWII is because we want to minimize causualities, both Iraqi and U.S. military. The nature of warfare has permanently changed. Deal with it.
Since gulf-war I and Bosnia, American armchair generals think war is supposed to be like a video game, or an errand to run. It is as if the other side is just made of pawns armed with sticks and stones so we should expect to walk all over them. If it doesn’t turn out that way, and people on our side start dying, then its all over and we should give up. Its Ok to withdraw because we have an unpopular president to blame for all of the consequences that follow.
Why is it so wrong to criticize this attitude? Why is it Mcarthy-like? Which side is purging itself of dissenters (see Joe lieberman). The only way we can loose this war is if this attitude prevails amongst the majority of our elected leadership. I don’t see any liberals or Democrats offering an plan to adapt and win the battle for iraq, rater, only to retreat from it. The consequences world-wide will be disasterous.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:08 am
Jimmy:
It’s not the “armchair generals” who think it’s a video game, it’s the Secretary of Defense. It’s the SecDef who thought it was all going to be surgical and precise. It wasn’t anyone but the war supporters who called it a cakewalk. It wasn’t the liberals who refused additional troops soon after the invasion and ordered commanders to begin preparations for going home. In short, everything you said is simply wrong.
And by the way, “see Joe Lieberman?” See Lincoln Chaffee.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:28 am
Iraq is over only in the sense that only two question remains: Will the flight from southern and central Iraq occur before or after the election? Will the US defend Kurdistan (from the Turks, as well as the Iraqis) after we flee the rest of Iraq?
The reason the first question exists (because the Bush administration certainly doesn’t WANT to leave) is that the supply lines up from Kuwait are totally unprotected. So at some point the insurgents will shut them down, leaving the US (and UK) militaries hung out to dry. Personally, I’m hoping that the Army has contingency plans already drawn up for the withdrawal — even if they haven’t mentioned them to Rumsfeld and his merry men.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:29 am
Wow, if Ahmadinejad were to read this thread his little beaver trap of a mouth would curl into a smile. I’m not of the Pollianna School of foreign policy, but I’m not quite willing to jump on the prosiac train to defeatistville, either.
Maybe, some actual expertise is needed. Lt. Col. Terry Daly, an Army intel officer and provincial adviser in Vietname suggests that maybe 18 year old Marines aren’t the best force to be dealing with insurgents, but rather what is need is a POLICE FORCE worth a shit. Read it at Intel Dump.
http://www.intel-dump.com/
August 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Dos, it depends on how bright Ahmadinejad is. Because once the US leaves Iraq, the Iraqi Shias are likely to try for leadership of Shia Islam — after all, most of the major Shia holy sites are in Iraq, not in Iran. Could get ugly; and ugly in that area is ugly indeed.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Michael Reynolds:
Fine. Both you and I would probably agree that the majority of problems in Iraq today stem from this singular decision which occurred 3 years ago. We planned for massive refugee flows, oil field fires and chemical warfare, all of which never happened.
We wanted to leave too quickly, precisely because we wanted to avoid what is happenning now; the very insugency that is the bane of this administration and the source of vitriol for his critics. I seriously doubt the liberals would have been so supportive of a full-fledged occupation from the onset. If they were, than maybe the SecDef would have felt so burdenned to try the surgical and painless approach. What irony.
However; I am talking about today. The only solution to the problem offered by the democrats is not to adapt and win, but rather to withdraw completely. Sometimes your initial plan goes wrong and you got to have a back up plan to deal with the consequences. What better illustration than Bush’s mistakes in Iraq. It doesnt appear that liberals or democrats have learned from this.
You gotta have a plan B. What is Lamont’s, Kerry’s or Murtha’s plan B if “strategic withdrawal” fails? Anyone? Am I such a McCarthyite to demand this from them?
August 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Dos, thanks for that link, very interesting article. I agree, such a force could have been instrumental in crushing the insurgency immediately after the invasion. Of course that would have required actually admitting there was an insurgency in place. Whether we didn’t send the right kind of troops or we didn’t send enough troops (both in my opinion), the fact is that we didn’t do enough to win. Since Bush won’t pull us out of Iraq willingly, he’s got 2 choices: Spend a lot of money and political capital to change things in Iraq or blame someone else. So unless “Adapt to Winâ€Â? involves about 200K more troops, this police force and some plan to close the borders, I think we’re going to see a lot of blame thrown around.
Sideways (or whatever you’re calling yourself), I remember an article from your old site titled “Never enough Power�. It seems particularly appropriate now.
August 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Its a catch-22. The political capital will not exist unless there is manifest improvement and manifest improvement will only occur if there is political capital to change the strategy. There is only one way for that poltical capital to now emerge, so many years after 9/11 — we have to get attacked again to win in Iraq and declare war in Iran.
August 21st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Jimmy:
I absolutely agree: s— happens. And when it happens you adapt and win.
The problem is that the leadership has refused to adapt. They denied there was a problem. They won’t even replace Rumsfeld. Their strategy right now is to play whack a mole and hope the Iraqis suddenly get their act together even as that country is suffering 3,000 (in American equivalent of 30,000) civilian deaths a month.
There’s no point telling me we need to win. I know. Unlike the uncritical pro-war bloggers who’ve been trying to sing us a lullaby about how great things were going, I’ve been screaming about this for three years. We’re losing when we should be winning and the uncritical pro-war side has been enabling this incompetence.
August 21st, 2006 at 1:51 pm
[...] Donklephant: Waiting For The Other Joe [...]
August 21st, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Michael:
Uh, no. I’m not inventing facts. And since I do not believe that Al Gore has ever studied Sartre in his life, in Cannes or anywhere else, I am emphatically NOT accusing him of going to France to study a notorious Marxist.
I did omit something though: the list of respectable French existentialists should include Gabriel Marcel. If Gore had said “I went to France to study the existentialists – you know, Marcel and Merleau-Ponty …”, I would have let it slide.
But “Sartre and Camus”? No way in Hell.
Rest assured that you are no more an anti-semite than Al Gore is a French existentialist. However, you should be aware of the way that word is resorted to on the left these days, even when it is not remotely applicable.
I’m not Jewish and I do not lecture my Jewish friends on how to take care of themselves, but if I were you I’d watch my back around some of your erstwhile allies.
You know, there is a middle assessment between “fiasco” and “rousing success”. 99% of human endeavor resides there.
August 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Jimmy,
You gotta have a plan B.
That is the point Michael and others were trying to make. I supported this war as well, but what I have seen from this administration is complete incompetence in its prosecution. They didn’t have a plan B in case things went wrong, hell, they even refused to recognize that things were going awry early on. I remember the administration refusing to believe that they had an insurgency on their hands, then assigning way too much importance to Zarqawi, ignoring the real danger that was posed by Iraqi tribal, religious and ethnic fighting. As late as this year, our VP was proclaiming that the insurgency was still in its last throes! The most I’ve heard from the administration is “stay the course,” a course which has failed to address the problems we are facing in Iraq, the ethnic rivalries, divisions and sectarian violence. Anytime anyone brought up these criticisms they were labelled “defeatists” and liberal naysayers who were aiding the enemy. I know, because I’ve visited many a blog on the right and anytime I tried to point out the mistakes, and missteps of the administration I was generally shouted down and hit with every epithet from liberal commie pinko to terrorist supporting anti-zionist chicken-hawk.
That said, I’ve experienced similar vitrol from the left, whenever I’ve argued that while the administration has made a plethora of mistakes in Iraq, and has refused to recognize them, there was still a chance to salvage the situation by bringing pressure to bear on the president to make the right decisions with regard to Iraq. While I agree that the right blogosphere deserves alot more blame for aiding the president in keeping his blinders on while Iraq went to hell, the liberal side also has blame coming its way for not being able to look past their dislike for GW Bush to the challenges that confront our country. Only the middle has sought to break through the partisanship and divisions but even here we have failed.
Is Iraq lost, I would say it is not, where there is a will, we can always find a way. However, this administration no longer has the will or the imagination to come up with a realistic strategy to turn Iraq around, other than their overused “stay the course.” That being the case, although we can still salvage Iraq this will not happen unless the administration acknowledges its mistakes and reaches across party lines to build support for a 200K plus deployment of troops to Iraq to establish security and control over the country to allow Iraqis a chance to decide their own destiny without fearing being blown-up to and from work. Absent this, no amount of rhetoric, or blame-gaming will salvage Iraq. As of now, any such actions seem doubtful, that is why I think that despite the fact that were we to have the will we could win Iraq, we will ultimately loose. The administration will not admit that it has failed and needs a new plan to salvage Iraq, nor will they appeal to friends and allies for help with a mea culpa to ensure its success, rather they will continue to bluster on about thier “catastrophic success” and the defeatist -Pravda like MSM which hates America and is financed and supported by the enemy within in the form of the liberal elites most of whom can be found in the democratic party. The future looks very bleak indeed.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
nykrindc, I agree that “Iraq is not lost”. I have to point out though that the measure of truth in that statement depends first upon what you might consider “a win”.
There are solutions, but like an unproven chemotherapy cure for cancer they could be highly dangerous for the patient. No, take that parallel one step further – they could also be highly dangerous for the doctor administering the treatment.
That such solutions would not suit US “interests” is problematical. There might not be any solution that would accept the present form of those interests.
So, the probability of a US “win” in Iraq would seem to depend upon the ability of the US to change its objectives both in Iraq and the wider sphere.
Given the “moderate” nature of your personal outlook I won’t hold my breath.